Samuel Halpern
Member
Because Cameron made more than 30 dives to the wreck, that does not make him a marine forensic analyst expert.
How badly damaged is Titanics lower forward bow beneath the mud?
Gordon Mooneyhan
Member
In addition to what #Sam Halpern said, what makes Cameron an oceanographer, let alone noted? What institution of higher learning gave him a degree in oceanography? As far as I can tell, he has no degree in oceanography.
Samuel Halpern
Member
Cameron certainly has a deep interest in Titanic and has made some great contributions to our knowledge of what is and can be seen at the wreck. But his opinions of what may have happened and so forth, are just opinions, like many others have. People's knowledge and capabilities have limits. For Cameron to state that the ship would have sank in 15 minutes if she had hit the berg head on is an opinion without a firm base. Perhaps he should talk to people who have investigated such types of accidents like S. Zhang, H. Ocakli or P. T. Pedersen, technical experts who published papers dealing with the crushing of ship bows in head-on collisions to see if they would agree with his assertions.
But we all know that if James Cameron said it, it must be true and good enough to cite in your own works.
But we all know that if James Cameron said it, it must be true and good enough to cite in your own works.
Gordon Mooneyhan
Member
Agreed Sam, he is probably best characterized as an avid/advanced hobbyist when it comes to the oceans
Ditto Sam, another point of agreement. In my book, I give my thoughts about what would happen had the Titanic missed the iceberg and instead collided with the ice field head-on and sideways (if the ship were turning to try to avoid the ice field. I hope that I have made it clear that those are my opinions and that I don't have the engineering background to state what would happen as a fact.
Please give me 50 lashes with a wet noodle if I ever cite James Cameron as a primary source in any of my works.But we all know that if James Cameron said it, it must be true and good enough to cite in your own works.
Samuel Halpern
Member
Better yet, I'll ask Harrison Ford to lend me his whip.
Gordon Mooneyhan
Member
ROFLMAO! Thanks much, Sam; I needed the laugh today.Better yet, I'll ask Harrison Ford to lend me his whip.
Scott Mills
Member
Oh, no doubt at all. I just do not think James Cameron did this. In fact, I think this is an off the cuff remark made by him as I have serious doubts about the veracity of what he is saying. Essentially he would have to be saying that the forward part of the bow would not have given at all when it hit the ice, and instead the structure would have failed near where the forecastle attaches to the main body of the ship.
Anyone who has been in a head on collision, or seen one, in an automobile has enough common sense to say, "maybe the structure would have failed at Titanic's bridge, but it certainly isn't the case that the bow itself would not have crumpled when Titanic struck a solid wall of ice at 22mph."
Zirnitra
Member
well head on collision would be less lethal for titanic as the bow section has good construction and crumple zone would not go further than first cargohold.. problem is with rivets holding hull plates,bow would crumple right? then rivets would get torn off too and that could go similar distance than with iceberg damage,only solution was to put one engine full astern this actually was solution to fully avoid collision,but we know,engines were stopped all at once,this was mistake.
ohh one thing, im curious about hull condition under ocean floor in all that mud,there is no access for bacteria to eat the iron away right? so the buried hull should be in good or very good condition.
ohh one thing, im curious about hull condition under ocean floor in all that mud,there is no access for bacteria to eat the iron away right? so the buried hull should be in good or very good condition.
Samuel Halpern
Member
How do you know that? That's purely an assumption on your part. That claim does not show up in damage to other riveted vessels in head-on strikes. The damage area tens to extend only as far back as about 1/3 greater than the length of the crusted in area. The deceleration force that would be felt would have gone from 0 to about 0.4g before abruptly ending in just under 4 seconds.
Magnus Lundin
Member
I remember a documentary from many years back that "RMS Titanic Inc." made, or attempted to make, scans that would penetrate the mud in an attempt to find iceberg damage. I don't recall the results though.
EDIT: Apparently it was in an expedition in 1996 which brought a sonar from Polaris Imaging to penetrate the mud:
www.titanicconnections.com
EDIT: Apparently it was in an expedition in 1996 which brought a sonar from Polaris Imaging to penetrate the mud:
RMS TITANIC INC. - 1996 to 1998 - Titanic Connections
Titanic Connections RMS TITANIC INC. - 1996 to 1998
www.titanicconnections.com
Last edited:
Samuel Halpern
Member
Zirnitra
Member
the bow rivets were bad quality,much of slag,very brittle. now add head on collision at full speed. i did not say that entire bow would crumple up to bridge zone, it would crumple up to first compartment so cargo hold nr 1 but leaks could occur in firther compartments and they had no technical ability to pump out water from this area, well all cargoholds and forepeak section would flood but notthing else,the water would not spill from one to another. bow would be almost submerged but ship could continue to nearest port at slow speed,they had eoungh coal to cover extra few days.
the iceberg damage is visible but little,we can see only boiler room 6 and something for boiler room 5 coal bunker damage. i dont remember if they mapped damage on cargoholds. and bottom of bow section was probably not mapped so we have no proof and no evidence that the ship run aground on iceberg (but during the collision ship turned 2 degrees)
the iceberg damage is visible but little,we can see only boiler room 6 and something for boiler room 5 coal bunker damage. i dont remember if they mapped damage on cargoholds. and bottom of bow section was probably not mapped so we have no proof and no evidence that the ship run aground on iceberg (but during the collision ship turned 2 degrees)
Gordon Mooneyhan
Member
How many firemen would have died if there had been a head-on collision? The firemen were housed in the bow area, along with a number of single male third-class passengers.
Samuel Halpern
Member
Gordon Mooneyhan
Member
You forget Newton's First Law of Motion (Inertia), "An object at rest will stay at rest, and an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force." Yes, it's easy to instantly send word to the engine room to reverse the engines. But that can't be done until the engine comes to a stop. And once the engine has stopped, the ship will still be moving forward, so there will be cavitation around the propeller(s) (basically a vacuum effect that will cause the propellers to lose a great deal of efficiency as they will be turning against water that is sending out a wake of air bubbles reducing the efficiency of the propellers.)
Similar threads
